clicknext I didn't think this thread had taken on a particular nVidia vs ATI vibe as we've covered plenty of cards comparing 9500PRO to 9700/9700PRO and the GF4TI4200 to the 4400, 4600 & 4800 as well as others too.
isaacmacdonald the 4600 is still a very fine card and still very capable of playing all current games well and many with medium AA & AF too. All you can do is go by your budget and reqs and look to what's available at the time. With the current Radeon range it is VERY hard to rec an nVidia solution at present, that's not to say they aren't good nor that they are any worse now than they were 6-12 months ago (they're still the same card after all) but there is simply better to be had elsewhere at almost all price points.
At the
bottom end the Rad8500/9100 is tops as you get a great all-round card with full DX8 hw ... the Rad9000PRO is largely inferior, Rad9000 is hideously slow, GF2/3 have too many non gaming downsides, Xabre are quirky, GF-FX5200ultra seem far inferior to the Rad8500/9100 (the DX9 on them is a total waste) and finally although the GF4MX overcome the GF2's non-gaming shortfalls you still only have DX7 hw and with VERY slow speeds too. The
low mid-range is where the GF4TI4200 really shine as they're actually very close in perf to the 4400/4600/4800 cards which are also generally priced much higher. In the
high mid-range the Rad9500PRO and Rad9700 are tops although GF-FX5600ultra may give them a good fight as it isn't hugely slower than the Rad9500PRO ... though it's still early days so is a little hard to tell yet, FX certainly seem quirkier than the Rad9700's were on their launch. As for the other Rad9500PRO/9700 competition the Rad9500 is seriously slowed in having only 4 pipes and the GF4TI really can't compete on any level (inc pricing)! At the
top-end the Rad9700PRO, 9800 and 9800PRO are the key cards although GF-FX5800 can compete here they are still scarce and immature at present, of course GF-FX5800ultra have far too many downsides to compete here at all and the less said about the quirky over-priced under-performing Matrox Parhelia the better really. I'm certainly no ATI fanboy but it is clear as a neutral knowledgable enthusiast that ATI simply have the better range of cards at this current time, much like nVidia had when the GF4 series launched and successfully saturated the market. Back then the GF4TI4200 was by far the 'best buy' just like the Rad9500PRO and Rad9700 are now ... and back then people seemed to think I loved nVidia simply because the 4200 was the most rec'd card! Of course it's still early days for the GF-FX so those who can should wait and see. Currently I don't think the old
'ATI drivers are awful' argumant is valid as GF-FX seem far quirkier, even compared to the Rad9700 upon its launch. Of course the GF4 are going to have very stable drivers as although the cards still are certainly good the technology is GF3 old and therefore already well maxed out and with nVidia concentrating on improving the GF-FX range unlikely to get any better. When it comes to features such as enhancing DVD/MPEG playback (courtesy of DX9), dual display and TVout the ATI drivers are significantly better.
Rollo there's nothing wrong with not wanting to o/c but your posts have certainly said a LOT more than that. To insinuate that all (or even most) o/c'ers kill their cards and then RMA them is seriously mis-guided. Any o/c'ing carries an inherent risk but unless the individual is seriously unknowledgable or wreckless the risks are miniscule and totally insignificant. No o/c is ever guaranteed and people have to understand that being stuck at stock speed is all they may get, but with certain components it's easy to see what you can expect on AVERAGE with only std stuff too (eg cooling solutions). FYI I hardly ever o/c but seeing the potential of the AthlonXP1700+ TbredB and Radeon9500PRO (which I have) along with other TbredB, Barton-XP2500+, P4A 1.8ghz, P4A/B 2.6ghz, Rad9700 and GF4TI4200 it makes sense not to be overly dismiisive. They each achieve between 20-60% overall real world speed increases which is a LOT to pass up esp as that's only average increases and with std cooling etc too. If you don't wish to o/c of course that's fine as it's your choice BUT to say others are criminals for doing so and that people shouldn't be made aware of o/c'ing potential is plain daft IMHO.
On the subject of anything below the Rad9700/9700PRO being crap for AA+AF the Rad9500PRO are more than capable of playing all current games with some AA+AF and even many relatively new games with high AA+AF. Even the GF4TI4200 can use low to medium AA and/or AF even in many relatively modern games and certainly anything that's older. As for DX9 it isn't needed right now but is a very good future purchase, the DX9 cards have enough merits elsewhere to make DX9 a free bonus anyway. Buying with a little future-proofing in mind is not a bad thing, PC2700-3200 wasn't needed for a very long time, DX8 wasn't either, 128MB on gfx cards wasn't, 333/400FSB capable AMD mobos weren't etc etc ... you see not all of us can simply afford the best nor throw money at things as a method of (insanely?) future-proofing our purchases. As for GF4TI4600 being better cards than Rad9500PRO that's stretching it a bit. Even without DX9, image quality, TVout, DVD/MPEG playback (etc) AND putting the Rad's far superior AA+AF to one side the 4600 is only 5% faster at best and is also more expensive (30%) to boot! That really makes no sense to me, heck you can get a Rad9700 for that. The GF4TI4200 is still very good as it costs less than the Rad9500PRO (just like Rad8500 vs GF4TI4200) and even the GF4TI4800 series has helped to reduce the price of the GF4TI technology but really the vast majority of people are simply better off with the Rad9500PRO or 9700 which are easily superior and cheaper too.
Facebook
Twitter